Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection, following an application by the deputy of the patient H, held that the gratatious payment of £23,000 per annum to the deputy was in H's best interests. 

Income tax – Assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeals by the taxpayers against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) to uphold discovery assessments made against them by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. The tribunal decided that the FTT had erred in law by failing to address certain issues put before it. Accordingly, the FTT's decision would be set aside and the assessments reduced to zero. 

Immigration – Detention. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against the judge's finding that his detention in prison, rather than in an immigration removal centre (IRC), had not been in breach of art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that detention in an IRC was generally more appropriate for immigrant detainees than detention in prison. That included time-served foreign national offenders who had been assessed as not posing a risk to the stability of IRCs or to the safety of others who were being held there. However, subject to exceptions for vulnerable detainees, detention in a prison was not generally arbitrary and in breach of art 5(1). 

University – Student. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Office of the Independent Adjudicator's decision that his complaint about the termination of his registration as a medical student was not justified. It was not shown that the defendant's approach had been irrational. 

Sentencing – Sexual offences against children. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who was convicted of raping and using lewd and libidinous practices towards his teenaged daughter and the teenaged stepdaughter of a work colleague, the court held that the trial judge did not take sufficient account of the significant and unexplained delay in bringing the case to trial, and the cumulative effect of the consecutive sentences imposed had produced an overall sentence (16 years' imprisonment) which was excessive, particularly in the case of a first offender: the court substituted sentences resulting in an overall sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. 

Criminal law – Threatening or abusive behaviour – Availability of defence of self-defence – Burden of proof. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against conviction, the court held that a sheriff did not misdirect the jury when he told them that the special defence of self-defence had no relevance to a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner under s 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010; s 38(2) did not impose a legal burden on an accused as opposed to an evidential one and the sheriff did misdirect the jury on that matter; however, as the appellant's behaviour could not, on any view, be characterised as having been reasonable, notwithstanding the misdirection there had been no miscarriage of justice. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that it was in the patient's best interests to stop the life sustaining treatment, following an application to the court by the patient's daughter. In deciding the issue, the court considered the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Code of Practice. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to drop options set out in its documents concerning developing an estate. The authority's decision had been unlawful, as enough had not changed to entitle the authority to stop consulting on the options and there were no bars to the grant of relief. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's application for an interim injunction where the main proceedings were in Israel, where the balance of convenience laid against the grant of an injunction preventing the respondent from applying the net proceeds of sale of a property towards satisfaction of his obligations under a put option and where it was appropriate for any interim relief to be sought from the court seized of the main proceedings in Israel. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The Technology and Construction Court held that in a dispute regarding an adjudication in a construction contract, an email exchange on 3 March 2015 had constituted a valid and binding agreement upon the parties. That agreement had not been rescinded by M, rather, M had accepted B's repudiatory breach of contract.